B (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1933 (12 December 2012)

B (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1933 (12 December 2012)

The judge failed to adequately explain or justify his evaluation of the risk of harm to the children and why the risk of returning them to their parents was acceptable, given the seriousness of the injuries and the evidence. This lack of analysis and articulation of the balancing exercise was a fundamental flaw, requiring the order to be set aside.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1933
Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; 1st Respondent: Mother; 2nd Respondent: Father; 3rd and 4th Respondents: Children (by their Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Interim Order in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Children Act 1989, Threshold Criteria, Proportionality, Welfare Principle
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Supervision Orders Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria Proportionality Welfare Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

1st Respondent

Father

2nd Respondent

Children (by their Guardian)

3rd and 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Interim Order in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing interim care orders and granting interim supervision orders
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly evaluated and explained the risk of harm to the children
  3. 3 Whether the judge's balancing of risks and proportionality analysis was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The judge failed to adequately explain or justify his evaluation of the risk of harm to the children and why the risk of returning them to their parents was acceptable, given the seriousness of the injuries and the evidence. This lack of analysis and articulation of the balancing exercise was a fundamental flaw, requiring the order to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside

Orders

  • Interim supervision order set aside; further submissions to be heard regarding next steps